I think that a presumption of no AFD deletion for the same policy reason is
a great idea, but not across the board. If someone brings up an AFD for a
new reason, it should be eligible. But definitely not for the exact same
reason infinitely. That's the problem that is going on as we speak for
Conservapedia. Some new user is disregarding the results of the previous
three or four AFD's and is once again saying it doesn't meet the
qualifications for inclusion that were exactly the same as the AFD's that
resulted in Keep. Preventing AFD's on the same policy might also work to
make nominators be more clear about referring to policy in their reasoning
for deletion. - VanTucky
On 6/14/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 14/06/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 14/06/07, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
And naturally it's gone as a result of what
looks to me like a rather
messy process.
The 14th AfD just closed.
That says a lot. Why should the 14th AfD be any different from all the
other AfDs?
And furthermore, the article's been around since September 2005 so that
means on average it's gone up for AfD roughly every 1.3 months. Some
sort of rate limit would be nice.
I agree. A four month moratorium following a "Keep", or two months
after a "no consensus" seems plenty to me. Maybe 6 and 3 respectively.
The other change I'd really like to see to the AfD process is that,
following a "Keep" result, there should be a presumption against
deletion in further AfDs, with the preferred remedy (if remedy proves
necessary) being restoration to the version of the article that was
Kept. Otherwise, you get silly situations like this where people keep
going and going until they eventually get the result they want.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l